A little pushback on Mallers dismissing the role or centrality of the role of agreement in money. Some thoughts I had as I heard Mallers dismiss that lense on money. We could all get together and dig out 8 billion pounds of sand and give each person a pound and then agree to use that sand as money but no other. So we agree that nobody will use any other sand as money. That would work if we all kept the agreement. We would likely get a situation of decentralized inflation in this case because people would likely break the agreement (because they (easily) can). But it would work as long as nobody broke the agreement, right? So it is about agreement, is it not?

I guess it is true that with gold or bitcoin we don't need to agree not to make more of the stuff because we all know it's hard. You go ahead and try to make more, be our guest as the saying goes. But we do still need to agree to exchange our life-energy and the fruits of that for whatever it is we use as money. That agreement is necessary. Some classes of objects are easy to agree about this on while others are not. The reason we can all agree to use gold or bitcoin as money is because we all agree anybody can try to create more and or that it's hard for everybody to do that.